Same plan, different owners: why Swedish forestry looks so alike
Swedish forest owners have wide legal freedom to decide how their forest is managed. But what happens when their goals go beyond timber production? We put our questions to Anna Karlsson, PhD student in forest planning and advisory services.
Different goals, similar forests
What does it mean for how a forest develops if two owners want completely different things?
“In reality, forest owners and their goals are very diverse. Yet most Swedish forests are managed in a rather similar way, due to established forestry ideals, market structures and the content of advisory services.
Imagine if this diversity of goals were reflected in the forest landscape, creating different ‘rooms’ with different experiences: paths and viewpoints for recreation, different tree species and layers, some standing forest left, different rotation ages. It would move us away from the homogeneous feel.
At both landscape scale and the level of an individual owner’s ambitions, a more strategic placement of habitats and the use of alternative methods could create greater variation and connectivity, which would also benefit biodiversity.”
How free is an owner, really?
How much freedom does a private forest owner really have to shape the forest after their own goals?
“We need to separate two things. First, legal obligations in Sweden are relatively minor and leave plenty of freedom in decision-making. Second, the actual capacity to act is often constrained by factors such as social norms, the content of advice and planning practices.
If the goal is mainly timber production, established planning tools and forestry practice support it, so continuing as usual is easy. For owners with other goals, the practical room for action can be much more limited. It’s not that they lack the right to decide, but that it’s hard to express, specify and carry out their goals within today’s planning practice.”
Why plans look the same
Why does forestry often end up similar, even when owners’ goals differ?
“One reason is that forest planning still follows a rather standardized approach, despite the diversity of owners and their goals. In our study we found a lack of harmonized data, tailored planning software and outdated templates for planners’ work routines.
Both the planning process and the resulting plan tend to focus on the individual stand, so broader ecological and social values are overlooked and owners’ many-sided goals aren’t reflected. The plan has looked much the same since the 1990s, while needs and possibilities have changed.
We need plans and decision-support tools that consider multiple values, assess risks and consequences, are updated continuously, and compare scenarios, for example spruce versus mixed forest, to support decision-making.”